Legal Opinion
Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation v. Edmund A. Gray Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 23, 2004No. A100075, A100279PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GEMELLO, J.
The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 25249.5-25249.13), adopted by vote of the people at the November 1986 election as Proposition 65, regulates the discharge of specific toxins into California’s drinking water. A Proposition 65 plaintiff alleging an unlawful discharge bears the burden of proving that a discharge has in fact occurred. Regulations adopted pursuant to Proposition 65 establish a hierarchy of four “tiers” of tests that may be used to measure whether a listed toxin has been discharged. The regulations provide that a…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Erikson v. NunninkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Robey v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
- Boston v. Penny Lane Centers, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2009
- Kasparian v. Avalonbay Communities, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2007
- Suarez v. Pacific Northstar Mechanical, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2009
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.